Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1960 (RAJ)

Gurendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-29

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-The instant writ petition was filed on 03.01.1998 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to issue the appointment order giving the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary. As per the facts narrated in the petition an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2 for recruitment to the posts of Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary for 118 vacancies. Out of the said number of vacancies, 60 posts were kept for the general category candidates, 25 posts were reserved for OBC category candidates, 19 posts were reserved for SC and 13 for ST category candidates. The petitioner also applied. After having been declared successful at the written examination, the petitioner was called for interview and verification of documents. Out of the merit-list alongwith the final select-list a waiting list was prepared. The petitioners name occurs at S. No. 1 in the waiting list. The crux of the petitioners claim for relief in the writ petition is that out of 118 candidates mentioned in the final select-list, 4 candidates did not join in pursuance of the appointment orders and, therefore, being at S. No. 1 in the waiting list he staked his claim for appointment before the respondents. The petitioner has expressed the grouse in the writ petition that the respondents are sitting tight over his claim and have neither considered his matter in right earnest nor filled up the unfilled 4 vacancies. Hence, this writ petition. .2. It may be noted that the respondents issued the selection-list on 25.01.1997 and the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 in the month of May, 1997 that 4 posts are lying vacant and his name is at S. No. 1 in the waiting list, therefore, he may be appointed. Vide Annexure-P/4 dated 17.06.1997 the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar reported to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur that out of 118 selected candidates, 4 persons have not joined duty. In Annexure-P/3 dated 17.05.1997 addressed to the Director & Special Secretary to the Government. Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Jaipur, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar mentioned that Gurendra Singh (the petitioner herein) has made aplication that his name finds place at S. No. 1 in the waiting list and he may be accorded appointment on non-joining of duties by the candidates in the select-list. Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Jaipur, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar mentioned that Gurendra Singh (the petitioner herein) has made aplication that his name finds place at S. No. 1 in the waiting list and he may be accorded appointment on non-joining of duties by the candidates in the select-list. The Chief Executive Officer in the said letter sought directions from the Government. In their reply affidavit attested on 25.04.2003, the respondents have taken the plea that now the waiting list has lapsed and the petitioner has no right to appointment. .3. Rule 274 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 runs as under:-"274. Preparation of a merit list by the Committee.-(1) The Committee shall prepare a merit list of candidates considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of posts in the district and shall on receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads allot candidates from the list in the order in which their names occur in the list: Provided that- .(i) thenumber of candidates in the merit list prepared by the Committee shall not exceed one and a half time the number of vacancies actually available at the time such merit list is prepared; and .(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year in general and upto end of academic session for teachers after expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed. .(2) ThePanchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads shall take into consideration the requirement of Rule 261 while sending their requisitions to the Committee." 4. From a reading of the aforequoted rule it is obvious that the Zila Parishad itself is competent authority to operate the merit list and it is under no legal obligation to seek further directions from the State Government with regard to operation of the merit list because the rule vests jurisdiction in the Zila Parishad itself . It was unnecessary exercise which the Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar did while seeking guidance and directions from the Special Secretary vide his letter dated 17.05.1997. When specific rule lays down a procedure the authority is bound to operate the provisions of the rule and it cannot circumvent the provision of law by diverting to other methods. It was unnecessary exercise which the Chief Executive Officer & Secretary, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar did while seeking guidance and directions from the Special Secretary vide his letter dated 17.05.1997. When specific rule lays down a procedure the authority is bound to operate the provisions of the rule and it cannot circumvent the provision of law by diverting to other methods. Such diversion to other methods clearly fouls the procedure laid down in law and occasions non-exercise of jurisdiction lawfully vested in the authority. Operation of the merit list, as is clear from Rule 274, neither postulates nor requires seeking of direction or guidance from the State Government by the Zila Parishad. Thus due, to non-exercise of jurisdiction by the competent authority, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right. Further, after about five years of filling of the writ petition by the petitioner, the respondents filed reply stating that now the merit list has lapsed. Such plea is not available to the respondents when the petitioner himself has shown sufficient promptitude to stake his claim at various forums. 5. It may be noted that while admitting the writ petition on 09.05.1998, this Court ad interim ordered that the respondents shall give provisional appointment to the petitioner in the post of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary, as petitioners name finds place at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. 6. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case, the concerned competent authority has acted illegally in not exercising jurisdiction vested in it and, thereby, deprived the petitioner of his right to appointment. This is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The competent authority was under obligation to take decision immediately and the matter was to be placed before the District Establishment Committee. However, the authority did not act in accordance with law and tried to shift responsibility. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be appointed to the post of Gram Sevak-cum-Secretary by the Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar. In case, the petitioner has already been appointed in compliance of the order dated 19.05.1998 passed ad interim by this Court, such appointment shall stand regularised from the date the petitioner was given the provisional appointment. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.